Published articles in peer-reviewed journals are essential in building a credible and structured body of scholarly knowledge. Peer review serves as a cornerstone in maintaining academic integrity and quality. At AgroTech, a single-blind peer review process (also known as single-anonymized review) is used, in which the identities of the reviewers are kept confidential from the authors.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor for relevance and suitability to the journal's scope. Submissions deemed appropriate are then forwarded to at least two independent reviewers with subject matter expertise for scientific evaluation. The Editor holds final authority over acceptance or rejection decisions, which are conclusive and not open to appeal.

Editors do not participate in decision-making for manuscripts they have authored, co-authored with family members or colleagues, or when a conflict of interest exists (e.g., related to products or services in which they have a stake). In such cases, peer review and editorial handling are delegated to impartial editors to maintain objectivity.

Reviewer Responsibilities

External and internal reviewers are tasked with evaluating the quality and rigor of the manuscript. Their recommendations—whether to accept, request revisions, or reject—are based on the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s aims and the reviewers’ expertise. Reviewers assess submissions based on the following criteria:

• Originality: The manuscript should present novel work that contributes meaningfully to its field.

• Significance: The results must be well-interpreted and the conclusions adequately supported by the data.

• Structure and Format: The manuscript should adhere to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines.

• Relevance: The content must align with the journal’s scope and be of interest to its readership.

• Language Quality: The manuscript should be written in clear and comprehensible English.

• Overall Merit: The submission should provide substantial value to the academic community.

Editors or editorial board members with appropriate expertise may also conduct reviews and make decisions based on their independent evaluation. The Editor-in-Chief may consult additional experts if further guidance is required.

Review Process and Decision Categories

Peer review is considered complete once at least two reviewers have submitted their detailed reports, including comments and a recommendation. Based on the evaluations, editorial decisions fall into the following categories:

• Accept without revisions: Rarely granted, this indicates the manuscript meets all standards as submitted.

• Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication pending small modifications or clarifications.

• Accept after major revisions: Substantial changes are needed—such as addressing methodological issues, improving analysis, or refining research questions—before acceptance.

• Revise and resubmit: The manuscript requires significant revisions and may be reconsidered in a new review round.

• Reject: The manuscript contains serious flaws or is unsuitable for the journal, and will not be considered for future submission.

Reviewer Comments and Editorial Discretion

The Editor-in-Chief reviews all peer reviewer comments before sharing them with authors. If a reviewer’s feedback includes sensitive, confidential, or inappropriate content, the Editor-in-Chief may revise or omit such remarks. These types of comments should be placed in the confidential section of the review form, which is accessible only to editors and not shared with authors.

Flow Chart of Reviewing Process